09-14-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R eport Summary Local governments in Minnesota aic under piessure. Dem;uids for public service continue to grow, while their primary sources of revenue have not kept up. Local governments have often responded by cutting services and raising taxes and fees, thus giving citizens less for more. At the same time, citizens are more concerned about the effectiveness of local services. What is die value received for dollars spent? For the past 20 years, the Citizens League has been among the voices suggesting Uiere is an alternative, namely to redesign service delivery and government structures. In 1991, die Citizens League convened a study committee to revisit public service design and to examine how local govemmenLs organize and deliver their serv'ices. Over a four-month period, we heard from many people who offered their thouglitful perspectives on how local governments organize and deliver services. We saw many good e.xamples of local governments doing things well. Talented man agers and far-sighted elected ofFicials work together to launch innovations, create incentives for employees and managers and provide choices to consumers and officials. Iridividuals and neighborhood groups make smart choices and help guide officials in designing services. Clearly, though, these tilings are not happening every where. What are the impediments to local governments doing things differently and better? Kcrc arc some kev barriers: Misplaced incentives and motivation. Local officials often work in a system of motivation and reward in which incentives arc absent or encourage the wrong result. For example, if officials don't spend their entire budgets by year end, they may not carry over the surplus to future years or invest it to improve service. In .some cases, diey may see their budget cut. Lack (*<■ flexibility. Local officials often lack flc:v!bility in identifying their responsibil ities and how to best cany them out. This is seen when the state delegates service rc.sponsibilitics to local govemmenLs in a way that emphasizes complying with a detailed prescription for how things are to be done, rather than a shared vision of what should be accompli.shcd. Lack of evaluation. They may often lack a foriT:.al way of measuring and evaluating tlic outcomes of their services and sharing that information with citizens. Luck of opportunities for citizen involvement. Citizens, in turn, lack tools and opportunities to hold their local government accountable and to encourage innovative approaches to service delivery. RECOMMENDATIONS CREATE NEW OPTIONS FOR MANAGING SERVICE BUDGETS We recommend: □ Local governments, neighborhoods and individuals should have addi tional opportunities to manage service budgets as a means of improving service delivery. Our premise is that, in many cases, dollars now spent for services can be spent in different ways tc .uiprove the delivery of services. We assume that tile changes would have to be budget-neutral. In cur view, introducing these options, even if they were rarely exercised, would create signifi cant incentives for local officials to improve services because they will want to keep people satisfied within the system. '.ihc.*^ new opponuRitics can uJee place on several levels. For example: -n .T«.a